Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Jimenez vs SB County pt4

Jimenez vs SB County pt4

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Sarah Batcha
Jimenez vs SB County pt4
Jimenez vs SB County pt4

More info:

Published by: Sarah Batcha on Nov 28, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Memorandum ISO Plaintiffs’ Application for a TRO
2244196.5
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
JENNER & BLOCK LLPANDREW J. THOMAS (Bar No. 159533) ajthomas@jenner.com LISA J. KOHN (Bar No. 260236) lkohn@jenner.com CHRISTINA AVEDISSIAN (Bar No. 288067) cavedissian@jenner.com 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 239-5100 Facsimile: 213 239-5199 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PETER J. ELIASBERG (Bar No. 189110)  peliasberg@aclu-sc.org 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213 977-9500 Facsimile: 213 977-5299 Attorneys for Plaintiff, EFREN MONTIEL JIMENEZ
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EFREN MONTIEL JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Defendant. Case No. EDCV13-02163 DSF RZx) 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ENTRY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
 
 
 i
Memorandum ISO Plaintiffs’ Application for a TRO
2244196.5
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................. 2 A. The County’s Policy and Practice of Hosting Art Exhibits in the Second-Floor Gallery of the Government Center Rotunda ............ 2 B. Plaintiff’s First Amendment-Protected Paintings ................................. 4 C. The County’s Removal of Plaintiff’s Paintings from the 2013 Exhibit ................................................................................................... 5 III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 7 A. Temporary Restraining Order Standards .............................................. 7 B. Plaintiff Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of His First Amendment Claim ................................................................................ 7 1. Plaintiff’s Paintings Are a Protected Form of Expression Under the First Amendment ....................................................... 8 2. Defendant Created a Designated Public Forum by Intentionally Opening the Government Center to Expressive Activity ..................................................................... 9 a. Defendant’s Lack of Policy and Practice Demonstrates Its Intent to Create a Designated Public Forum. ................................................................. 10  b. The Nature of Defendant’s Property Is Compatible with the Expressive Activity at Issue ............................. 12 3. Defendant’s Removal of Plaintiff’s Artwork Cannot Survive Strict Scrutiny Because It Was Not Narrowly Tailored in Furtherance of a Compelling Governmental Interest ...................................................................................... 14
 
 ii
 Memorandum ISO Plaintiff’s Application for a TRO
2244196.5
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
a. Defendant Censored the Paintings on the Basis of Content ........................................................................... 14  b. Defendant Has Failed to Articulate a Compelling Interest for Excluding Plaintiff’s Artwork from the Exhibit ............................................................................ 15 c. Defendant’s Standard for the Exclusion of Artworks in the Exhibit Failed to Adequately Limit the Discretion of County Officials ....................... 17 4. The County, Not the Hispanic Employees Alliance, Demanded That The Paintings Be Removed ........................... 19 C. Absent Injunctive Relief, Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Harm ...... 20 D. The Balance of The Hardships Weighs Decidedly in Plaintiff’s Favor ................................................................................................... 21 E. An Interim Injunction Would Serve the Public Interest ..................... 22 F. Requiring That the Previously Censored Paintings Remain on Display for the Period of Time They Were Removed from Display Is the Appropriate Remedy Here ........................................... 23 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->